Some of you probably read French, some not – essence of the above article is that there is a contingent of U.S. (and Israeli, Jordanian) Syrian rebels that started a march on Damascus in mid-August, entering Syria through the Deraa region in the south.

This was reported in the French newspaper, Le Figaro, a mainstream paper. It needs to be verified – as does the chemical weapons charge – but why do i think there could be a connection to the campaign to pin the chemical weapons charge on assad?

Why all of a sudden the moral outrage against Assad? – and what about the massacres, war crimes committed by Wahhabist, Salafist so-called rebels? the moral outrage expressed seems rather selective from what i have read recently…

Neither side in this war has a monopoly on `playing fair’… there will be no military solution to this conflict – it needs to be dealt with politically – a negotiated settlement. The Obama Administration `talks’ negotiation but continues to train and arm Salafist rebels…talking `left’ while moving `right’ …again

too many parallels from where i am sitting with how the media handled Saddam in the period just before the invasion?

My take – which does not seem to resonate with what i have been reading from friends – goes like this:

1. the Syrian opposition has failed to overthrow Assad militarily. it is divided, with the more nutsy, salafist/wahhabist elements having essentially brushed aside the democratic opposition (as happened in Mali not long ago

2. having failed to overthrow Assad – who has a genuine base among some elements of the population (granted a thug, not a democrat and using all means at his disposal to stay in power) …now the US had a number of options: A. – admit defeat (even quietly) and actually go to the negotiating table at Geneva (Geneva II) for some kind of political compromise to end the slaughter, in which no one would get what they want but a compromise could still be reached to end the violence a la Yugoslavia in the 1990s B. talk negotiations while intensifying the efforts to overthrow the Assad Regime using U.S./Israeli trained Syrian rebel units, trained in Jordan (and probably financed to at least some extent by the Saudis).

It looks to me that Option `B’ is being acted out… very dangerous – but typically arrogant, reactionary ultimately U.S. approach to the region under the cover of – this time- `saving the Syrian people’ – like we `saved’ the Iraqis and Libyans from a `madman’ with chemical weapons. . And to get away with implementing this option, of course, Washington needs a cover and the new chem weapons charge provides it? why do you eat up this media spin – it seems to me – so quickly, so willingly? I don’t get it.

How many of you will support this brazen intervention, in the name of some cynical humanitarian internationalism, new cutting edge for an old policy?

So…how many times are you all – good, intelligent, progressive people – with what is often sophisticated analyses on the Middle East – going to fall for the same old song, with a slightly different feeling this time – old wine and i’m not even sure the bottle is that new?

My suggestion is that before jumping to conclusions that you weigh the situation a bit more carefully.